16 December 2011 10:22 AM
Slaughter at Liege: political quackery is the Belgian reply to depravity
In the note, Hitchens wondered how a known violent criminal such as Amrani had been able 'to keep or acquire a substantial arsenal' and speculated that Amrani 'would probably have been banned from legal gun-ownership in most states in the USA, certainly since what is described as a "vice conviction" in 2003.'
I reckoned Hitchens was probably right, so I asked Dan Peterson to comment on the slaughter, and on the fact that the Belgian authorities let a known violent criminal keep an arsenal. Peterson is a writer and firearms lawyer practicing in Northern Virginia -- that's the part of Virginia just across the Potomac from Washington DC (which speaks well for Peterson's taste, to choose to keep himself planted in the Old Dominion rather than in the federal district).
Just a taste of the opinions from this expert on the US Constitution's Second Amendment, which guarantees of the right of the people to keep and bear arms: 'Politcians and prosecutors who have lost their moral bearings will blame the instrument, not the man. It makes as much sense to blame Amrani's weapons for this sinister act as it does to blame airliners for the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11...'
And with that, I will turn over the rest of this post to what firearms law expert Peterson has to say on the slaughter:
In the aftermath of the mass shooting in Liege, the solution offered by Belgium’s newly installed Socialist premier is to tighten legislation against 'arms trafficking' and the possession of 'heavy arms.' In other words, his remedies are the usual political quackery, designed to protect the careers of politicians, mollify the public, and sidetrack any real examination of the source of this hideous event.
Although press reports conflict, here’s what we have learned about the murderer, Nordine Amrani. A Belgian citizen of Moroccan descent, Amrani was well known to the police. A prosecutor described him as 'in trouble throughout his life, up before children’s courts, petty courts, appeals courts.' He was on unemployment benefits.
Among other crimes, he was convicted of rape in 2003, for which he was given a two year suspended sentence.
In 2007, police raided Amrani’s flat. There they discovered a cache of arms and a shed filled with 2800 marijuana plants. In 2008, he was sentenced to five years in prison, but was released on parole in October 2010.
Shortly after his early release, he was suspected of sexually attacking a young woman after driving alongside her in his van. As part of the investigation, the police ordered him to report for an interview.
Instead, on the morning he was to appear, he killed a 45-year old cleaning woman with a bullet through the head. There was evidence of a struggle, and police surmise that he tried to rape the unfortunate woman before he murdered her.
He then raced to the busy market in the Place St. Lambert, where he lobbed grenades into the crowd and opened fire with a rifle on Christmas shoppers, babies, and schoolchildren. He killed at least six individuals and wounded more than a hundred and twenty other people before finally taking his own despicable life.
The BBC reported that Belgian authorities 'will now need to examine whether there was anything to indicate in advance that Amrani might have posed a danger to the public.' Prosecutor Daniele Reynders detected no warning signs, stating that 'At no moment in any of the judicial proceedings against him was there any sign of him being mentally disturbed.'
No sign? No danger to the public? Let’s start with a small clue, that rape conviction in 2003.
In Great Britain in the early 19th century, rape was punished by death. In 1841, transportation for life was substituted, changed later to imprisonment for life. Why not a two year suspended sentence? Because rape was justly regarded as the most vicious, foul, and shocking crime that a man could commit short of murder itself.
A rapist is far beyond 'disturbed.' Like indiscriminate murder, rape is a denial of the humanity of the victim. A man who rapes or shoots people at random treats them not as human beings, but as objects who have no rights or worth when measured against his own twisted gratification.
But to prosecutor Reynders, committing rape provides not even a hint of being 'mentally disturbed.' Perhaps she believes that only a 'mental disturbance' such as receiving CIA radio transmissions through the fillings in one’s teeth can explain a homicidal rampage, whereas rape is committed by perfectly sensible, normal people.
Sorry. That wasn’t her statement, but that of another Belgian prosecutor, Cedric Visart de Bocarmbe, who publicly wondered 'how it was possible for someone seemingly sensible and normal to do this.'
Let’s let that sink in: rape, large-scale drug dealing, and a history of criminal activity since childhood is 'sensible' and 'normal?'
To paraphrase the American senator and scholar Daniel Patrick Moynihan, this is 'defining depravity down.' Moynihan wrote that, 'By defining what is deviant, we are enabled to know what is not, and hence to live by shared standards.'
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I share any standards with people who believe that committing one of the most heartless, wicked crimes possible is sensible and normal.
So, politicians and prosecutors who have lost their moral bearings will blame the instrument, not the man.
It makes as much sense to blame Amrani’s weapons for this sinister act as it does to blame airliners for the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11, or to blame Zyklon-B, a commercial pesticide, for the murder of a million Jews at Auschwitz. Surely we see that those atrocities were committed by men with evil hearts, not by aircraft or chemical compounds.
The problem is not the supply of dangerous weapons. The problem is the supply of dangerous people.
I can remember when, decades ago, one could buy a firearm at any hardware or sporting goods store in America (a handful of local jurisdictions excepted), with no government approval or paperwork required. The crime rate was actually lower then, because to a far greater extent people were consciously law-abiding, with internalized moral principles.
In Europe, the U.K., and the United States, the supply of depraved, amoral, and often violent individuals is increasing.
Why that is happening is a subject for a book, not a blog post. But there is one certainty: we can expect most politicians to advocate fruitless measures aimed at symptoms, and to fastidiously avoid facing up to the causes.
Advice to the euro-elite: forget how tough the Finns are at your peril
What David Cameron actually accomplished at the summit was pretty small stuff, but he did accomplish this: if the British had gone into the Merkozy eurozone deal, the resistance growing to the fiscal pact this week in all the other 26 EU member states wouldn't have had a chance.
Now it does. And nowhere more than in triple-A rated Finland, a key member of the eurozone, and a nation with a history of courageous resistance to oppression that ought not to be forgotten by the euro-elite. Not if the euro-elite want to come out a fight in Helsinki with their skins still on.
(Since Chancellor Merkel in particular has been stirring up memories of the Second World War lately, trying to scare anyone who resists her plans, I could call her attention to the manner in which the Finnish army faced the Red Army after Stalin ordered the invastion of Finland in 1939: a real sobering encounter for the Commies.)
Which is one reason why, with resistance to the deal rising all over Europe -- just one week after the end of the summit, and the deal is falling apart before the eurocrats can even work out a text for a euro pact treaty: in Italy, in Poland, in the Netherlands, in Hungary -- I got in touch with the leader of the opposition in the Finnish parliament, Timo Soini, head of the Finns party.
Yesterday he forced the Finnish government to face a vote of confidence over the summit deal.
Today he sent me these notes on just why the eurozone deal must be resisted.
His arguments make David Cameron's arguments look as weak as a lavender-scented lace handkerchief. Indeed, I picture Soini as a kind of snow-covered Crocodile Dundee, facing Cameron and his lady-like reservations about the British financial services industry, and saying: 'That's not an argument. THAT's an argument.'
Here is Crododile Soini's argument:
On Tuesday this week the Finns Party made a strong non-confidence motion against the government. That gave me the opportunity to speak for 23 minutes live on the Finnish television about the euro crisis, the federalist agenda of the EU elite, and the government’s failure to stand up for justice and for the Finnish people.
These are the key points in popular language and our solution to the crisis.
Immoral Bailouts The European bailout plan is unacceptable. We are not against solidarity and helping those in need. It must however be done honestly and sincerely. The current symbiosis between the bankers and the political elite is not sincere. The bailouts are illegal. They break our jointly agreed rules. They question the integrity of our fundamental institutions.
The bailouts are immoral. The money goes primarily to well-off bankers, who will not admit and accept their mistakes, which they made while enriching themselves with highly profitable business during the last 10 years.
The bailouts are economically mad. The over-indebted states are unable to get back on track this way, especially in this state of the world economy. The only certainty is that the bailouts will create huge costs to other European states.
In the worst scenario, many others will fall, as in a giant domino effect, before the dust settles.
The Summit of Failure The European summit was a scam of massive proportions. First, it was a complete bluff. “Europe will collapse in 10 days unless…” Unless what? Why did it not collapse, then, given that the summit solved nothing?
Maybe it will collapse, but that has nothing to do with the summit.
Second, the summit is making things worse. Trying to force everyone to cut spending at the same time risks aggravating the macroeconomic situation.
Besides, the root causes of the crisis have surprisingly little to do with deficits. Until very recently, Ireland and Spain were in surplus. Even Italy still has a primary surplus. The fundamental issue is… the euro itself.
A flawed currency union that violated almost all the tenets of Optimum Currency Area theory, the euro created the structural conditions for huge imbalances, the loss of southern competitiveness, and reckless borrowing in both public and private sectors.
No one would have lent such amounts at such interests in liras, drachmas or pesetas. The crisis was no surprise. It was predicted years ago by economists both from the left (Krugman, Roubini) and the right (Friedman, Feldstein).
Even Jacques Delors knew it. He pushed ahead anyway, hoping that a crisis would provide the golden opportunity to usher in the federalist vision which the common man would never accept in ordinary times.
Loss of Sovereignty and Democracy Third, the European summit was a loss to national sovereignty and democratic principles. Merkozy bullied other leaders to sign something that no one knew what it really contains.
It is downright silly to suppose that the goal is merely to “strengthen” the existing rules. Every economist knows that the fiscal rules are flawed and incapable of solving the real issues, anyway.
What they are trying to do is to bring in a federal state through the backdoor. First, more powers to the Commission, in effect a European Ministry of Finance. Then, the Eurobonds. Finally, federal taxation.
It will be interesting to see how all this is done in practice. The politicians seem to be so used to breaking their promises that following it has become a national pastime in many countries.
This time they may also have to break the law.
In Finland, the Constitutional Committee gave a clear verdict before the summit: it would violate the constitution to be part of a bailout mechanism in which we have no veto. Prime Minister Katainen went ahead anyway, and now they are figuring out how to wiggle through.
Legal scholars in Germany have pointed out that Germany could never accept a similar situation (in the new ESM deal Germany will always have a veto due to its size). Yet they are asking, even insisting, that Finland and others accept it.
What about Ireland? Will they put the changes to the people in a referendum? Or will it be another Lisbon Treaty? Yet it is evident that if the new deal is supposed to have any real meaning, it will have to imply a transfer of sovereignty, so that a referendum is necessary.
No Other Solution? The correct solution is simple. It will cost, of course. There is no painless way out of this mess.
Remember Iceland. It suffered one of the biggest crises in recent history. It took the right measures, taking big haircuts on its external debt (despite vocal protests from international bankers and their political puppets!), and tightening the belt.
Now it is undergoing a promising recovery. Of course, Iceland had a clear advantage: its own currency. That gives flexibility.
Yet the basics are repeatable. Tough haircuts on external debt. Aid only through ordinary IMF funding, along ordinary principles and ordinary funding.
No special politically motivated deals.
Tough on banks and bankers. Bail them out only if necessary: not indirectly, but openly and directly, with demanding conditions.
Will there be a recession? Maybe. Perhaps even a depression. But if so, then it is something that cannot be avoided in any case. The current, flawed plan is not “buying time”. It is only making things worse.
Wanted: Political Courage In the Finns Party, we are in favour of co-operation. We are favour of Europe. We are in favour of national sovereignty and effective responsibility.
The British have made their choice. I cannot express in words how grateful we are in Finland to Cameron and the British leadership for their courage to say No.
It makes a huge difference. Other countries like Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Austrian and the Netherlands must ask themselves: what is really the right thing to do?
To us one thing is clear: Finland should not participate in a flawed and dishonest bailout plan. The Finnish parliament has the power to say No and stay out, completely.
However, Mary Ellen Synon is right: The Big Question is referendum.. Now is the time to listen to the people, for once for real throughout Europe.
Cameron after the European summit: not as brave as he looks
I'll do a longer blog on Cameron in Brussels when I've recovered from summit sleep deprivation, but for the moment I'll just ask you to note this before you decide he was brave in using the veto: by refusing to sign the plan for a new treaty Merkozy were demanding, Cameron got exactly what he needed at the summit.
He needed a way to arrive back home and say that Britain doesn't now need to have a referendum.
Which is exactly what he got at in Brussels, an escape from a popular vote. By refusing to agree to the new eurozone 'fiscal pact' treaty, he is -- for the moment -- safe from a referendum. Cameron's 'courage' was Cameron dodging a bullet. Which is to say, a quick manoeuvre to his own political benefit.
If Merkozy had called Cameron's bluff at the summit and said: 'Okay, here are some safeguards on your financial services industry, now agree to sign the new 27 member treaty' -- which by the way hasn't been drafted yet, so God only knows what further horrors beside permanent growth-suffocating austerity may be in it -- Cameron would have been in trouble. He would have arrived back in Britain with his signature on a document that would have allowed the Tory MPs to force a referendum.
The referendum would have resulted in a No, and at that point Cameron would have been forced to make a choice that would indeed require courage -- whether he would lead the inevitable subsequent move to take the United Kingdom entirely out of the EU, or go on with his long-standing Ken Clarke-style insistence that Britain must be in the EU.
Going by all available evidence, Cameron is incapable of that kind of courage.
Memo to tough-talking Dave: trouble is, Brussels knows you're a pansy
By now you have probably seen reports of the article David Cameron wrote for the Times this morning. It covered what he says are going to be his demands at the European Council meeting later this week. The piece was garnished with a tough-guy headline 'Yes to treaty change -- but only on our terms: Britain will sign up for fiscal discipline in the eurozone, but not at the expense of our industries and our independence.'
Oh, Dave, you're so strong.
So should we expect some punch-ups in Brussels this week when the new 'steely' Cameron tries to insist that Merkozy back down on threats to regulate Britain's financial services out of existence? No.
I just bet they are.
This kind of thing is a part of the run up to every Council meeting: briefings where you hear a lot of stuff that turns your stomach, but you can't report who told you any of it.
Such as this: the dismissive way in which diplomats refer the the 'threat' of referenda on these vast treaty changes the euro-elite are manipulating. One diplomat told me that popular votes had to be avoided because they were 'an uncertain process.'
Another dismissive term I've heard for democracy here is 'a pitfall.'
What the euro-elite hate about popular votes is that they are 'an uncertain process.' You can't stitch them up. Unlike these European Council meetings, referenda are uncontrollable by the euro-elite. That is why the Brussels cartel dismiss popular democratic votes as distasteful, as something which would be avoided.
But would referenda indeed be messy? Darn straight they would be, and a good thing, too. Democracy is like sex. As Woody Allen says: 'If it's not messy, you're not doing it right.'